Matthew L. Hoppock

Owner

Matthew Hoppock is a seasoned immigration advocate and litigator. He focuses his work on serving immigrants, their families, and their employers across the United States, with a particular emphasis on appeals to the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, appeals before the Board of Immigration Appeals and the AAO and litigating immigration issues in the federal courts. Matthew also consults with other attorneys on appellate strategy and brief-writing on a contract basis.

Matthew is a native Kansan and graduated from Salina Central High School. He studied philosophy at Kansas State University and obtained his law degree from the University of Kansas.

Education

J.D. University of Kansas, 2008

BA Kansas State University, Philosophy, 2005

Admitted to Practice by the State of Kansas

U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and the Western District of Missouri

In the News:

“For more than two decades, Sigifredo Saldana Iracheta, 49, insisted he was a US citizen, repeatedly explaining to immigration officials that he was born to an American father and a Mexican mother in a city just south of the Texas border … In rejecting Saldana’s bid for citizenship, the government sought to apply an old law that cited Article 314 of the Mexican Constitution, which supposedly dealt with legitimizing out-of-wedlock births. But there was a problem: The Mexican Constitution has no such article.

The error appears to have originated in 1978, and it has been repeated since, frustrating an untold number of people who are entitled to US citizenship but could not get it.

“What this looks like is nobody’s ever checked it out. And it is shocking,” said Matthew Hoppock, a Kansas City lawyer who specializes in appeals related to immigration issues.”

“We don’t dispute that he has a final order of removal,” Hoppock said. “And we don’t dispute that legally they have the right to deport him if they want to. But doing so, before getting an answer on DAPA, is highly contrary to the president’s public statements.”

The final order for removal remained in place Friday, and it is difficult for his family to accept.

“He’s trying to lead a life like all of us here,” said Jimenez, his niece. “I don’t think it (deporting) is right for people who want to do better here. Take the people who are doing bad things here.”

“Although we had hoped the court would permit review of the way the USCIS has implemented the Adam Walsh Act to separate families in a way contrary to the statute, the Eighth Circuit agreed with us that the statute might not even apply to the visa petitions at issue here,” he said. “As we had argued, the statute only limits the filing of a visa petition when the visa petitioner has a specific conviction. Our clients’ visa petitions had already been filed and receipted by the USCIS.”

Now that the Eighth Circuit has agreed that the courts have jurisdiction to review this specific issue, Hoppock said they will take it back to the district court.

“If the statute is read as worded, hopefully our clients will be able to have the visa petition approved and can remain together as a married couple,” he said.